Articles Posted in Litigation

Published on:

by

By Kerry Shapiro and Daniel Quinley

On March 9, 2023, the US District Court for the Eastern District of California issued its ruling in Friends of the Inyo, et al., v. U.S. Forest Service, et al., in favor of the Forest Service and JMBM client KORE Mining Limited, in a challenge under the National Environmental Policy Act (“NEPA”) against the Forest Service’s approval of KORE’s small-scale, mineral exploration plan, brought by multiple environmental groups, including Friends of the Inyo and Center for Biological Diversity.

The case concerned a challenge to the Forest Service’s approval of KORE’s limited exploration project on mining claims located in the Inyo National Forest. KORE originally filed a plan of operations in the summer of 2020, proposing a small-scale mineral exploration project, comprising less than 1 acre of disturbance across twelve drill pads, and construction of a third of a mile of temporary access roads. The exploration project would be completed in under a year.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

By Kerry Shapiro and Daniel Quinley

The last month has seen a flurry of activity related to the California and Federal Endangered Species Acts, including:

  1. The California Supreme Court’s denial of review in the Almond Alliance of California v. California Fish and Game Commission litigation
  2. Governor Gavin Newsom’s appointment of a fifth member of the California Fish and Game Commission
  3. That Commission’s October 9, 2022 hearing, where consideration of the petition to list the western Joshua tree (WJT) as a threatened species was continued for a second time
  4. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s proposed listing of the Bay-Delta longfin smelt on October 7

First, on September 21, 2022, the California Supreme Court denied a petition to review a ruling by the 3rd District Court of Appeal in Almond Alliance of California v. Fish & Game Com., (2022) 79 Cal.App.5th 337. This denial lets stand the decision by the Court of Appeal, allowing the listing of four bumble bee species under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). In that decision, issued in May of this year, the Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the trial court, reasoning that the Fish and Game Commission could list insects because the California legislature – despite evidence accepted by the trial court that the legislative committees that wrote CESA’s language explicitly believe insects were ineligible for listing – found that “the term of art employed by the Legislature in the definition of fish is not … limited” to aquatic species. Continue reading

Published on:

by

By Kerry Shapiro

On August 30, 2021, the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona issued an order in Pasqua Yaqui Tribe, et al. v. U.S. EPA, et al., vacating the Navigable Waters Protection Rule (“NWPR”) and remanding the rule back to the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“Corps”) (collectively, the “Agencies”) for further review. The NWPR was enacted during the Trump administration and represents the EPA’s latest attempt to define the term “waters of the United States” (“WOTUS”). The NWPR represented a categorical approach to Clean Water Act (“CWA”) jurisdiction (i.e. certain water features were categorically excluded from jurisdiction under the CWA, including ephemeral streams), and it significantly narrowed the scope of such jurisdiction. Following the court’s ruling, EPA announced the Agencies would halt implementation of the NWPR and instead interpret WOTUS consistent with the broader jurisdictional scope of the pre-2015 regulatory regime until further notice. The National Stone, Sand, and Gravel Association (“NSSGA”), among several business interests, intervened into the case, arguing that a return to the pre-2015 regulatory regime would increase regulatory uncertainty, including, as discussed below, a likely increase in 404 permitting.

In this case, the plaintiffs alleged that the NWPR exceeds the EPA’s statutory authority and is contrary to the CWA’s text and objectives, which require broad protection of all of the U.S.’s waters, because the NWPR excludes certain waters from the protections required by the CWA. The NWPR can be viewed here. The plaintiffs, several federally recognized Native American tribes, also alleged that the EPA failed: (1) to explain its decision to reverse prior regulations; and (2) to consider important aspects of that prior decision, including the effects on water quality and aquatic ecosystems, the ecological importance of protecting the excluded waters, and the effects of the reversal of prior regulations on the CWA. Plaintiffs moved for summary judgment in the case, and in response the Agencies filed a motion asking for voluntary remand of the NWPR without vacating it. This would have allowed the Agencies under the Biden administration to continue to implement the NWPR as the Agencies simultaneously worked to draft a replacement. Plaintiffs agreed that the NWPR should be remanded, but also argued for vacatur and implementation of the pre-2015 regulatory regime, asserting that intermittent and ephemeral streams in Arizona would otherwise be left unprotected. Continue reading

Published on:

by

By Kerry Shapiro

Last week, the California Supreme Court handed down an important decision on prevailing wage law favorable to industry. On August 16, 2021, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in Mendoza v. Fonseca McElroy Grinding Co., Inc. S253574, answering the question whether prevailing wage must be paid for mobilization work, which involved transporting heavy machinery to and from a public works site under Labor Code section 1772. The Court held that section 1772 does not expand the categories of public work that trigger obligation to pay at least the prevailing wage and that under this theory, prevailing wage did not need to be paid for mobilization work. In so far as there may be some other statutory basis for compensating mobilization and travel time at the prevailing rate, those issues were beyond the scope of the Court’s decision. The Court’s decision is consistent with the positions argued in the case by Fonseca, and by JMBM client California Construction and Industrial Materials Association (“CalCIMA”), which had filed an Amicus Brief in support of Fonseca. Continue reading

Published on:

by

State Water  Board Announces Intent to Enforce 2019 Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material as “State Policy”

By Kerry Shapiro, Martin Stratte, and Daniel Quinley

On February 3, 2021, the State Water Resources Control Board (“SWRCB”) issued a “Notice of Opportunity to Comment and Notice of Public Hearing and Consideration of Adoption” (“Notice”) of a resolution “to confirm that the State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State (Procedures) are in effect as state policy for water quality control.”  The Notice states that SWRCB will consider the resolution at a public video/teleconference meeting on April 6, 2021.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

By Kerry Shapiro, Martin Stratte and Daniel Quinley

On December 18, 2020, the Sacramento County Superior Court prohibited the State Water Resources Control Board (“SWRCB”) from implementing California’s new wetlands and “waters of the state” protection program, and limited SWRCB’s application of the regulatory program to only waters already protected under the federal Clean Water Act. The court’s ruling essentially invalidates SWRCB’s nearly two-decade-long effort to fill the gap left by the shrinking scope of regulation under the federal Clean Water Act following the Supreme Court’s 2001 decision in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook Cty. v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (“SWANCC”).

In January 2019, SWRCB hastened its adoption of its new regulations – the “Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State” (“Procedures”) – after the Trump Administration introduced the new “Navigable Waters Protection Rule” to regulate pollutant discharges to Waters of the United States (“New WOTUS Rule”).  The New WOTUS Rule limits the reach of the federal Clean Water Act and is presently in effect as of June 22, 2020.

Continue reading

Published on:

by

Just what makes a decision “final” enough to support a Fifth Amendment takings claim?

In his article, “‘Finality’ may be the next key issue in takings litigation,” published by the Daily Journal, Daniel Quinley of JMBM’s Natural Resources and Mining Group, addresses a recent Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals’ decision that indicates that determining the “finality” of a local agency’s decision may well be the next key issue in takings litigation. He writes:

“At the very least, one can rest assured that demonstrating that a local agency has made a definitive agency decision will remain critical in bringing successful Takings claims. For now, that process will involve continued robust participation in the local agency’s decision-making, timely requests for variances or exemptions, and efforts toward clearly capturing an agency’s definitive intent regarding a specific property.”

Continue reading
Published on:

by

An Overview of CalCIMA’s Current Judicial, Legislative, and Regulatory Activities

by Kerry Shapiro, General Counsel to CalCIMA and Chair of JMBM’s Natural Resources and Mining Group
and
Martin Stratte

This article was first published in the Summer 2019 issue of The Conveyor, a publication of the 
California Construction and Industrial Materials Association (CalCIMA), and is published with permission.

2019 has been an active year for CalCIMA, as its members remain busy supplying the materials necessary to build our homes, roads, and critical public infrastructure projects.  To ensure its members may continue to do so successfully, CalCIMA has stepped forward in response to a number of legal, legislative and regulatory developments that threaten to increase the challenges facing its members doing business in California.

Below is an overview, from the perspective of CalCIMA’s legal counsel, of some of CalCIMA’s most important legal activities undertaken in 2019.  They include the following:

  • Ventura County Habitat Connectivity and Wildlife Corridor Litigation
  • John D. Sweeney v. State Water Resources Control Board and San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board Amicus Brief
  • Waters of the State Rulemaking Proceedings
  • Pending Amendments to Riverside County Mining Ordinance
  • Point San Pedro Road Coalition v. County of Marin (San Rafael Rock Quarry, Inc.) Amicus Letter of Support
  • Various Legislative Activities

Litigation Challenging Ventura County Habitat Connectivity and Wildlife Corridor

At the top of the list is CalCIMA’s efforts to protect regionally significant mineral resources through proactive litigation.  In March 2019, Ventura County adopted its Habitat Connectivity and Wildlife Corridor Project, which amends its general plan and zoning code and imposes new land use restrictions, including restrictions on land located within 200 feet of “surface water features”.  The reported purpose of the Project is to protect wildlife, namely mountain lions, by restricting land use and development on public and private lands that have been included within the Project’s overlay zone.  In total, the Project includes more than 160,000 acres of land.

The Project also overlaps onto more than 13,000 acres of mineral resources that were previously classified and/or designated by the California Geological Survey (CGS) and State Mining and Geology Board (SMGB), respectively.  Notably, the SMGB designation process was subject to environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and therefore, required the preparation of an environmental impact report and related studies.

Despite the Project’s inclusion of 13,000+ acres of classified and/or designated mineral resources, which are a natural resource protected under CEQA (like air, water, and wildlife), the County approved the Project without (i) consulting with either CGS or SMGB in accordance with sections 2762 and 2763 of the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA), or (ii) undertaking a CEQA analysis of the Project’s environmental impacts, including the impacts to mineral resources.

In approving the Project without environmental review, the County invoked the class 7 and 8 CEQA exemptions for projects intended to protect natural resources and the environment.  (14 CCR §§ 15307, 15308.)  The County also rejected multiple written requests from CGS to discuss the Project and its potential impacts to important mineral resources prior to approval.

During the public hearing process in early 2019, CalCIMA submitted two detailed comment letters outlining its concerns with the County’s lack of compliance with SMARA and CEQA.  However, the County maintained its position that the Project was exempt from CEQA and that consultation with CGS regarding the potential impacts to the 13,000+ acres of classified and/or designated mineral resources was not required. Continue reading

Published on:

by

On May 1, 2019, Petitioner San Joaquin Tributaries Authority, a Joint Powers Authority (Petitioner/Authority) filed a petition for writ of mandate in Sacramento County Superior Court against the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB).  The Authority includes the City and County of San Francisco as petitioners.  The petition challenges SWRCB’s approval of the “State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State” (Procedures) on April 2, 2019.

SWRCB released the Procedures in January 2019, shortly after President Trump announced his plan to rescind and replace the Obama Administration’s 2015 definition of “Waters of the U.S.”  President Trump’s proposed definition of Waters of the U.S. is more narrow, and would reduce the scope of waters subject to federal regulation under the Clean Water Act, including activities within those waters, such as the discharge of dredge and fill material.

The SWRCB’s Procedures are intended to, among other things, codify California’s regulatory authority over the discharge of dredge and fill material into waters being proposed for exclusion from federal regulation through Trump’s proposed definition.  The Procedures also seek to regulate dredge and fill activities within all “Waters of the State”, which is broadly defined to include “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.”  This broad definition includes all natural wetlands, modified wetlands, and even some artificial wetlands.

Continue reading
Published on:

by

On April 25, 2019, the California Construction and Industrial Materials Association (CalCIMA) filed a petition for writ of mandate and complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief (“Petition”)  in Ventura County Superior Court challenging the County of Ventura’s approval of a proposed “Habitat Connectivity and Wildlife Corridor” Project and its implementing regulations.  The Project was approved by the County Board of Supervisors in March 2019 and is intended to “discourage” development within the Project area.  The County approved the Project without completing environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

The Project is essentially an overlay zone that is several hundred thousand-acres in size and includes thousands of acres of important mineral resource deposits (construction aggregate) that have been previously identified by the California Geological Survey and, in some instances, designated by the State Mining and Geology Board (both of which are separate divisions of the Department of Conservation) as being “regionally significant” in meeting the region’s building material needs. These important mineral deposits are a protected natural resource under CEQA and are necessary for use in future housing projects, road construction and repairs, and public infrastructure projects.

Due to the importance of these mineral resources, the County previously approved a Mineral Resources Protection overlay zone intended to ensure the resources were available for future extraction, and not encumbered by incompatible land uses.  The County also enacted specific “Goals, Policies and Programs” in its General Plan to provide enhanced protection for these mineral resources.

Despite the importance of these mineral resources, the County approved the Project overlay zone without completing any CEQA review.  The County concluded that CEQA compliance was not required because the Project is intended to benefit the environment.  However, notwithstanding these potential benefits, the Project and its implementing regulations will cause significant environmental impacts that require environmental review in accordance with CEQA, including the Project’s effects on future efforts to extract critical mineral resources. Continue reading